Mediaboss Marketing

23-02-2012 07:33 The Securities and Exchange Commission says scammers are selling real stocks on social networking sites.

Here is the original post:
SEC Warns About Social Media Scam - Video

Two weeks ago I asked, "What's so social about social media?" I'm very critical not of social media per se, but of the overuse of and over indulgence in it: people hanging out on Linkedin, Facebook, and all kinds of other ersatz social environments - and not getting out and doing some real networking.

The sum and substance of my disenchantment with social media from a career coach's point of view is that it's just not doing for your career what you might think it is, while concurrently contributing to an appalling loss of interpersonal, team and in-person social networking skills. So I figured it's time for my "Six Amigos" to weigh in again. If I haven't convinced you yet, read on.

Diane Young, partner, Steps to Success; founder, Unemployed Optimists, Fair Lawn

Social media is a powerful tool for job-seekers when used correctly. Overuse, misuse and abuse of social media, however, are serious issues. Overuse is spending too much time on line. Limit social media time and spend it at public places where you will encounter people with mutually beneficial opportunities. Misuse is logging in with no clear goal. Have a specific plan to update your profile, research companies, or search keywords on job boards. Abuse is collecting without connecting. Don't boast about how many connections you have. Connect with appropriate people, get to know them, and correspond with them periodically. There is no substitute for face-to-face networking with other job seekers or at informational and industry-specific events.

Alex Freund, The Landing Expert, career coach, Princeton

With great impetus, the pendulum of social media has swung all the way in one direction in its support, fueled ferociously by itself. While such self-serving activity has many positive aspects, it often leads to the question "So where did all the time go?" I also see its negative impact on job seekers. Over 27 percent of hiring companies have already stated that they're reducing their use of social media in locating candidates, as it has produced huge numbers of unqualified candidates. They also know that good candidates are harder to find, as a result. Make yourself easier to find by getting out there.

Janelle Razzino, executive recruiter, Razzino Associates, Westwood

As a recruiter for 24 years, I've always kept an open mind to many changes, new tools and now, social media channels. But (and that's a BIG sigh), I am always leery of shortcuts to accomplish enormous tasks like looking for a new opportunity. Nothing feels as good as or takes the place of a firm handshake or a great smile while networking on your feet instead of on your screen. Stop hanging out on social media sites and start hanging out in real life with other great people at your networking groups. Companies call people who know people who are well-suited for open positions.

Cathy Love, director of Career Development Center, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck

The old adage "never put all your eggs in one basket" was never as true as it is today in the job-hunting arena. Spending days on the Internet isn't enough. Use multiple approaches. Join a professional association, meeting others in your field - they may know of hidden market opportunities. Connect with job-seeker support groups to exchange information. Volunteer at your favorite non-profit; you'll feel good helping others, and it may afford networking opportunities.

Follow this link:
Career Coach: Los 'Seis Amigos' y Social Media

A recent report from Pew Research indicates social network users are now paying more attention to managing their online profiles than in recent years. The study found an increase in the use of social networks' privacy controls, a climb in users who only let friends see their profiles, and a growing proportion of people who've at one point punted a 'friend' from their rosters, for whatever reason.

Users of social networks, especially women and younger members, are managing their accounts better in recent years, Pew Research has found.

About two-thirds of Internet users belong to social networking sites, and metrics for profile management have improved, Pew said.

For one thing, users are cleaning house more. Overall, 63 percent of social networking site users have deleted friends, up from 56 percent in 2009.

They're also getting better about keeping the front door shut. Fifty-eight percent of users say their main profile is set to "private," which on most networks means it's only viewable by an approved list of friends.

However, users are roughly equally divided in their ability to manage privacy controls on user profiles. Pew found that 48 percent of users report some level of difficulty; 49 percent say it's not difficult at all.

Pew based its findings on a survey of nearly 2,300 adults in April and May.

"It's clear from the big stories in the news right now that people really care about privacy," Electronic Frontier Foundation spokesperson Rebecca Jeschke told TechNewsWorld.

Blaming users for not using privacy controls would be a mistake because "companies need to be much more transparent about the tools available and what they do or don't do," Jeschke added.

Who Does What Where

Pew also found that 44 percent of respondents have deleted comments made by others on their profile, and 37 percent have removed their names from photos on which they were tagged.

Women were more prudent profilers than men. Pew found that 67 percent of women on social networking sites had deleted people from their network; the figure for men was 58 percent. The same trend showed up when it came to profile privacy -- 67 percent of women set the highest privacy restrictions on access to their profiles, while only 48 percent of men did so.

Male users and young adults are more prone to post content that they'll regret later. Pew found that 15 percent of men and 8 percent of women posted content they later felt sorry for.

Only 5 percent of social networking site members 50 years and older posted content they regretted later, while 15 percent of social networking site members aged 18 to 29 did so.

Oh, to Be Young Again

Teenagers who use social media generally display the same behavior as their adult counterparts, Pew has found.

More than 60 percent of teenaged social networking site members said they most often set their profile to be private so access to their posts is restricted only to their friends. Another 20 percent maintain partially private profile settings, and only 17 percent set their profiles to be fully public.

The corresponding figures for adults are 58 percent using a private profile setting, 19 percent partially private and 20 percent completely public.

Young adults are more likely than their older counterparts to delete contacts from their friends list. About 70 percent of young adults surveyed said they've trimmed their friends list, compared to 63 percent of those aged 30 to 49, 56 percent of those aged 50 to 64, and 41 percent of those aged 65 or more.

Young adults were also more likely to delete comments on their profiles and remove photo tags, Pew found.

Privacy Isn't Social Profile Control

"Pew doesn't know what they're doing," Jeffrey Chester, executive director at the Center for Digital Democracy, told TechNewsWorld. "Their research is so one-dimensional here."

Pew and "most members of the public" don't understand the "powerful marketing strategies" Facebook uses to collect data on users and then influence their actions, Chester said.

"Before Pew analyzes user attitudes on Facebook, it should first examine the social network's business practices," Chester remarked. "Failure to peer into the stealth world of Facebook marketing limits Pews' ability to come to any meaningful analysis."

In November, well after the Pew survey was conducted, Facebook agreed to settle charges made by the Federal Trade Commission that it had violated users' privacy. The FTC had alleged that Facebook had reneged on privacy promises it had made to users over the years to the extent that its actions at times threatened the health and safety of users.

That settlement requires, among other things, that Facebook get consumers' approval before it changes the way it shares their data.

Pew Research did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

See more here:
Social Network Users Dumping Friends and Locking Doors

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Users of online social network sites such as Facebook are editing their pages and tightening their privacy settings to protect their reputations in the age of digital sharing, according to a new survey.

About two-thirds, or 63 percent, of social networking site (SNS) users questioned in the Pew Research Center poll said they had deleted people from their "friends" lists, up from 56 percent in 2009.

Another 44 percent said they had deleted comments that others have made on their profiles, up from 36 percent two years before.

Users also have become more likely to remove their names from photos that were tagged to identify them. Thirty-seven percent of profile owners have done that, up from 30 percent in 2009, the survey showed.

"Over time, as social networking sites have become a mainstream communications channel in everyday life, profile owners have become more active managers of their profiles and the content that is posted by others in their networks," the report said.

The Pew report also touches on the privacy settings people use for their SNS profiles. The issue of online privacy has drawn increasing concerns from consumers, and the Obama administration has called for a "privacy bill of rights" that would give users more control over their data.

Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed said their main profile was set to be private so that only friends can see it.

Another 19 percent said they had set their profile to partially private so that friends of friends can see it. Only 20 percent have made their profile completely public.

The report was based on telephone survey of 2,277 adults in April and May 2011 as part of Pew's project on the Internet and American life.

(Reporting By Ian Simpson; Editing by Paul Thomasch)

Read the original post:
Social networks getting a bit less social: poll

A new study suggests H5N1 is more easily spread and far less deadly than scientists believed. What does that mean for work on potentially lethal man-made versions of the virus?

AFP / Getty Images

H5N1 avian influenza spreads easily among chickens and other birds.

This is one thing we thought we knew about the avian influenza virus H5N1: it is extremely deadly. Since the virus first emerged widely in human beings in 2003, there have been 587 cases confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO). Of them, 346 resulted in death. That’s a fatality rate of 59%, far above the 0.1% death rate for the standard seasonal flu. If H5N1 really kills more than half of eople it infects, it would represent one of the most dangerous health threats on the planet.

This is another thing we thought we knew about H5N1: it rarely infects human beings. Though the virus can spread like wildfire through populations of chickens and other birds, it almost never seems to make the jump to infect human beings — and even then, only when there’s close contact between an infected bird and a person. (Like the Thai cockfighting trainers who became infected after giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to their sick fighting birds.) The virus almost never spreads from person to person.

That makes H5N1 frightening — especially if you’re unlucky enough to contract it — but, ultimately, a limited health threat. Now, what if it it turned out that H5N1 actually infected far more people than we thought, and that nearly all of them became somewhat sick, but ultimately recovered? That would mean H5N1 was much more transmissible than scientists expected, but far less deadly.

That’s the conclusion pushed by a paper published in this week’s Science. Peter Palese — an eminent flu expert at New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine — and his colleagues did a meta-analysis of 20 studies that attempted to find evidence of subclinical (meaning without symptoms) infections of H5N1. He estimates that H5N1 infection is far more common than the number of laboratory-confirmed cases would indicate, and that the true fatality rate is much, much lower than 59%. If that’s true, bird flu may not be the great danger it has sometimes seemed to be, and that would make the ongoing debate over whether scientists should continue work on a man-made H5N1 virus simply academic.

MORE: A Bird Flu Death in China — What It Means, and Doesn’t Mean

Many flu researchers have long assumed that there were likely more human H5N1 cases than were being officially confirmed. The WHO counts only cases that involve people who come to the hospital and who can be confirmed through blood studies to have contracted H5N1. In a developed country like the U.S. with an extensive hospital network, doctors might be able to catch most of those infections. But nearly all the human cases of H5N1 have taken place in developing countries like China, Thailand, Indonesia and Egypt, and often in rural areas where doctors and hospitals are in short supply. (To get an idea of the challenges faced by health officials fighting H5N1 in a poor and sprawling country like Indonesia, check out my 2007 TIME Asia story.) There’s every reason to believe that many H5N1 cases might be missed — especially unusually mild ones that wouldn’t drive an infected person to the hospital.

So scientists have tried to conduct seroconversion studies in areas where H5N1 has hit, looking for evidence of antibodies to the virus in people’s bloodstreams. The Science article analyzed data from a number of those studies that involved more than 12,500 subjects, and found data to suggest that 1% to 2% of them showed seroevidence of prior H5N1 infection. Though Palese and his colleagues — who refused to comment for press stories on the study — wouldn’t say what the revised fatality rate for H5N1 would be, their data suggests that the new rate would be less than 1%, which would make it only a little more dangerous than the seasonal flu.

But not everyone agrees with the paper’s conclusions. The WHO has stood by its data, estimating that the fatality rate for H5N1 is likely between 30% and 60%. Other experts criticized the Science study, arguing that it was based on misleading or faulty data that may overestimate the number of people infected by the virus. A recent analysis from Michael Osterholm, head of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), estimates that the fatality rate of H5N1 is at least as high as the WHO has put it. From CIDRAP:

Yi Guan, MD, PhD, a virologist at Hong Kong University, told CIDRAP News in an e-mail that he believes H5N1 seroprevalence rates are likely to be lower than what many studies have reported. He said microneutralization assays can generate a lot of false positives, based on his lab experience comparing the method with classical virus neutralization assay.

Conducting serological surveys using microneutralization assays without doing parallel tests to confirm the findings can produce H5N1 seroconversion rates amplified “many, many times or log,” he wrote.

Guan said he personally has doubts about whether there are any subclinical H5N1 cases, based on his own experience reviewing unpublished data.

The debate over H5N1 is more than just academic, however. The flu world is currently enmeshed in a deep debate over whether research involving a man-made H5N1 virus — one that apparently looks to be most highly transmissible and highly deadly — should be published in scientific journals. Those who oppose publication argue that putting the details of such work in the public realm increases the likelihood that terrorists will try to recreate their own killer flu. There’s also the chance that if work continues on the virus, it might escape from the lab — as happened several times with the SARS virus — triggering a potentially catastrophic pandemic. Those in support of the research, however, argue that such work helps flu experts prepare for a possible pandemic — and they say that the government has no business trying to censor legitimate scientific research.

MORE: Should Journals Describe How Scientists Made a Killer Flu?

Last week scientists and public health officials from the WHO at a highly contested meeting in Geneva agreed to put a temporary halt on any work on the man-made H5N1 flu, while the journals Science and Nature — which have accepted manuscripts on the research — have agreed to hold off publishing studies on the virus for now. But both journals have said that they eventually intend to publish the studies, and many flu researchers including Palese have said that they believe fears of the man-made H5N1 are overblown. And if it turns out that the natural H5N1 virus is actually much less deadly than we thought, the entire controversy could be defused.

That makes the timing of the Science study — published right after the WHO meeting — suspicious to some flu experts, as Sharon Begley wrote for Reuters:

Some scientists said there was little coincidence in the timing of the study’s publication. They noted that Palese published similar findings last week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and that it is unusual for Science to publish a paper when key data have appeared elsewhere.

“The editors of Science and Nature are the most powerful people in science,” said an influenza epidemiologist who asked not to be named for fear of retribution. “This is the editors of Science saying H5N1?s fatality rate isn’t 50 percent, so we don’t need to worry about a (possible) lab release.”

For its part, Science denies that the controversy played any role in the decision to publish the Palese study. But either way, the debate over H5N1 — the version in nature and the one that was cooked up in the lab — is far from over. And to those who’ve already made up their mind: don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.

MORE: A New Project to Track Animal Diseases Before They Infect Humans

Read the rest here:
Bird Flu: More Common, Less Deadly than We Thought?